Thanksgiving week blog

Before taking this class I never really noticed the connection between politics and sports. Since we discussed the connection between the two in class, sports and politocs seem to be popping up everywhere. For instance, being a huge 6ers fan and wathcing the games as much as possible, the first embodiment of politcs and government in sports I noticed was the 6ers wearing American flag head bands and sweat bands during the week of Vetran's Day. This is actually the first year that I have noticed it and it makes me wonder if before I just didn't really pay attention or if this is the first season that they have done this. I somewhat doubt the latter so adressing this issue in class and in the article by Green has greatly opened my eyes to the connection. I do, however, think that the Presidential aspect that Green adresses is somewhat of a reach just because the fact that Obama being a sports fan does not really combine sports and government. I can see where Green id going though when he refres back to when Bush threw out the opening pitch at a baseball game because then the Presdient can be seen in the media along with a sporting event somewhat combining the two.

In response to the EURO 2008 article I have to say that I definately think that before anything else, sports is a money maker. One prime example is the Super Bowl. How much money is generated in a span of a few hours is remarkable. And all for a football game. It is amazing, but somewhat unfortuante when you see money take away the passion and purity for a game. Look at LeBron, he sold out his home team for luxury and more fame in Miami to be alongside Wade and Bosch. Once he went look at how many other players decided to follow. Atheletes generate so much revenue for themselves and for the companies and leagues that they represent and I never really thought about the logistics of it before this class and reading the article. I think that obviously, on an intentaional level you look at the olympics and see what that major sporting competition can do for a country. It can bring a nation publicity that they never would have received before and it all goes back to the economics and dollar signs. Crazy, I feel like I was blind for so long when the truth is that all anyone truely cares about anymore is money. Throw your dignity, passion and desire to play a sport out the window and focus on the money.

The Crazy World of Sports in Politics and the So-Called Profitability of Mega-Sporting Events

As Kyle Green and Doug Hartmann point out in “Politics and Sports: Strange, Secret Bedfellows” sport provides a stage for public visibility, attention, and awareness. This helps lead into the discussion of politics in sports, and more importantly sports in politics. As noted in there piece, President Obama has been referred to as the “Sports President” providing insight into the BCS playoff picture in college football as well as being given a segment on national TV to give his bracket during March Madness. However, as indicated by Green and Hartmann there have been countless presidents who have some affiliation to professional or collegiate athletics whether it is from playing or perhaps ownership.

There are countless examples of sports in politics, whether it is various politicians having their hand in the discussion and debate of sports. Take for instance locally in Philadelphia where former Mayor and Governor Ed Rendell has been a part of the postgame discussion after every Eagles game on CSN Philadelphia. Although he no longer holds those offices, he was still on the postgame show while he was governor.

Although this helps create, as the authors would suggest, an ability for an emotional connection to be made, it just seems unnecessary for politicians to find themselves discussing sports and being the go-to individual when it comes to the topic. It is understandable if the news would like to ask the mayor, governor, or president about a specific sports team however to seek them out to do segments and covet their opinion as if the public must know how they feel about it is a bit too much. Another instance of a local influence is Mayor Michael Nutter. He has spent countless press conferences wearing either a Phillies hat, or even an Eagles jacket.

And since the discussion is focused on sports in politics, there are many a former professional athlete who attempt to take their success from the field or the gridiron to the political world. Take for instance former Philadelphia Eagle Jon Runyan who happens to be the U.S. Representative for New Jersey’s 3^rd congressional district.

And finally, we even use sporting terms to describe and reference politics. Perhaps it helps people to associate people with the political realm, however society and more importantly political analysts use sport terminology to describe politics and even elections. Most recently on Election Day through ABC’s coverage, many were referring to President Obama’s reelection as a tremendous fourth quarter and were highlighting his ability to close as if he were Kobe Bryant.

 

 

If you build it and host a mega-sports event they will come and you will make unbelievable amounts of money, or will you? That is the question, as it seems, that is addressed through Bernhard Hachleitner and Wolfram Manzenreiter’s “The EURO 2008 Bonanza: Mega-Events, Economic Pretensions and the Sports-Media Business Alliance.” Profit, as well as short-term and long-term gain are the focus here in the discussion that Hachleitner and Manzenreiter write about focusing primarily on EURO 2008 and other mega-sporting events that happen to spring up all around the globe. Yes people view the Super Bowl in America and around the world as a mega-sporting event; however it doesn’t essentially fit the mold here being portrayed in this discussion. Although city’s bid to host the event, and it does foresee bringing jobs and revenue through tourism to the area, it is not a long running investment so to speak.

The discussion focuses on, or it seems, the profitability behind these mega-sporting events like EURO as well as the Olympic Games. One of the focal points of the discussion focuses on profitability through TV revenue for the mega-event itself. With new advancements in technology, people can view these events via their smartphone or tablet and even their computer or laptop rather than just traditional media such as TV. Because networks such as ESPN have other means of accessing their content, they are a highly coveted network to host a particular mega-event. It is lucrative for these hosts, and host nations, to have their mega-event broadcasted and streamed all over the globe for the profit as well as the notoriety and recognition that will occur from the outside world viewing the product.

As for forecasting and profitability for the host nation, or country, it is an interesting discussion point. Because most people would believe that if you were to host something as grand as the Olympic Games, than you must be expecting a long-term gain through high profits. However, what usually happens in forecasting these events is a very unfortunate issue with miscalculations. Spending for things such as infrastructure, construction and security will typically exceed expectations while revenue from tourism and outside viewing parties will usually be below what expectations were.
There are many examples where televising and hosting these mega-sporting events is not worth the resources. Take the Olympic Games in Beijing where the country had to spend enormous amounts of money to provide infrastructure for the events that were to be held. Then take into account what happens after, considering those structures are still there without much use for them. Also there is a current issue with the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro considering at last check, the budget was being severely passed for the World Cup and security was such a huge issue with the favela problem throughout the country.

It may seem lucrative and profitable to most to host and televise these mega-sporting events, however from some of the details perhaps it would be best just to avoid these headaches of situations.

Week 13 Post

Sport is the great communicator. And while sport is supposed to transcend politics and remain strictly on the field of play, it seldom does. It unites people, and as the Green/ Hartmann piece stated, is an easy way for politicians to prove their layman status. Mitt Romney, when campaigning for the presidency, made sure people knew that he had a hand in bringing the 2006 Winter Games to Salt Lake. It’s a huge point of pride, and one that made people feel he was on their level. 

As with huge events such as the Olympics and the World Cup, politics plays a huge role. The leaders are to convince their constituents that it’s worth the exorbitant investment and that the legacy of the event will be beneficial to the community. I witnessed this firsthand in England last year when local politicians, even with a year out to the London Games, were still attempting to hammer out a legacy plan for the Olympic Park that would be favorable to East Londoners.

I found the article on the 2008 Euro Cup very interesting, as well. While the audience for the Euros is global, the market is truly limited because it is a contest of solely European clubs. Such a small, short-lived event created 6600 jobs, proving sport’s impact on the economy. The impact of the event was evident everywhere as tourism picked up and the country’s economy grew due to the single, short tournament.

11/20 post The Business of Sports

The article covering Euro 2008 and the economic side of sports and sporting events really caught my attention because it synced up with something that I've noticed a lot throughout the last few years. Sports are a business first. We've touched on this topic several times in the last semester on Stadium Talk, which airs exclusively on WHIP Radio weekdays from 12-2 (shameless plug), and we always come to the conclusion that the idea of the purity of sports is in all actuality, non-existent. Before all else, sports is a business. That fact holds true when compared to championships, fair play and entertainment. The all-mighty dollar is king.

The simple fact that there are studies and rhetoric completely based around the idea of a sporting event revitalizing an areas economy is proof of that. Obviously football is huge in Europe and Euro 2008 was certainly an event that one would expect to carry huge economical power that could jump start any region, however that is not always the case. These mega events cost so much money to put on that often time, areas stand to lose money or atleast break even. However, there are still benefits in terms of exposure which is made readily available in this technology driven world we live in. The fact that the bulk of revenue for events like these come from TV rights is a sign that it is not about putting fans in the seats, but about creating global awareness of your event to make sure advertisers know the eyes are on you.

Anytime I analyze a work that breaks down the relationship between sports and business it distances me from the actual athletes themselves and makes me focus on the fact that at the end of the day, its all about a paycheck. That is not to say that shouldn't be the case, but most sports fans worldwide do not realize that is the case. As fans, we like to think the passion for the sport and the desire to win is what drives all the decisions made in the sports world but that is not the case. Money always comes first.

Euro 2008 and mega-events like it are a prime example of this. These mega-events thrive off the coverage given to them by media events and media events get a boost in ratings and advertising by covering events that have global appeal. This marriage is one that will always exist and it is the sole reason mega sporting event can thrive.

The political article was also rather interesting. One of the key components of it was the fact that it talked about the symbiotic relationship between sports and politics that we often don't notice. Obviously we see politicians at sporting events all the time and we watch championship teams celebrate with a visit to the White House but we rarely connect the two fields of American life. Religion aside, sports and politics are two of the most strong aspects of American life. They divide just as well as the bring people together, a fact that makes their influence on society incredibly strong. There is no wonder why politicians use sports to their advantage. It makes perfect sense. Millions of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, love sports. It's not like one party does and the other doesn't. It is a sure fire way to not offend people while appearing normal and in touch with everyday society. Take into consideration the night before election day this year when both candidates used MNF as one of their final platforms to address the nation.

As a journalist I tell people all the time that sports and journalism are so related and it baffles me that people don't realize it more. As a journalist I have covered both and they are incredibly similar in terms of coverage. They both encompass winning, losing, money, strategy and a myriad of other things. There is so much sport in politics and so much politics in sports.

Thanksgiving post

I think this article on sports and economics is pretty interesting. I liked how it showed how the Euro viewing market is greatly increasing over time. Watching futbol matches is something I've started to enjoy over the past few years. The only problem with this article I had was that I thought comparing the EURO cup to the olympics and the world cup was very unfair. I know they admitted it, but I think it is a completely irrelevant comparison.

How the market has grown over the years makes sense as well. The internet and cost of money is going to drive up prices and ratings. They have a positive correlation with each other because people love sports, especially Europeans and soccer and they are always going to spend the extra dollar to go watch a live match.

I do think however, that hosting events like this in countries does not have an immediate positive effect on a countries economy. Yes at the time it creates jobs and bring in a lot of money, but once the event is over more than half of those jobs are lost and all the money brought in doesn't equal out to how much it cost to shut down roads, build the new stadiums, do updates and build new areas to accommodate parking and the extra influx of people. In the long run it will all even out, but in the short term I believe it is a bad investment.

Regarding the politics and sports article, I enjoyed the presidential comparison in how their ties to sports has grown over the years. Obama is definitely seen as the biggest "sports president" because of the technology available today. But it certainly is a good idea for politicians to appear at games to remind people that they are a normal person outside of the office and that people's views of them shouldn't change because of what they do in the working life. I'm sure a republican Bears fan would enjoy hanging out with Obama at a Bears game and not let his political beliefs get in the way.

Week 11: Masculinity Blog

After reading this article I was not surprised. The fact that I was not surprised by what I read is what upsets me the most. As many other females are, I am an avid sports fan. I lovw going to games and being a part of the action. What saddens me is that, despite the fact that I know a lot more about sports than many of my male counterparts, women are still reffered to as "frail underlings".... what does that even mean? That I am not good enough to be as valuable as a male due to the fact that they have the right, due solely by their gender and to no other credit, to make women their subordinates? Is that what Trujillo is trying to get at? Well, let me go sit in a corner and cry because that is utter BS. Yea, men play sports; cool, I get it. It doesn't mean they are any better than females. I know that is not the main point that this article was trying to get accross but that's part of what I took from it.
The 5 features of hegemonic masculinity are also BS. Okay, so let me get this straight. A male is considered to be masuline if, and only if, the 5 attributes fit him. 1; he must use/ have physical force and control: okay OJ Simpson, 2: they must have occupational achievement, 3: familial patriarchy (funny because its the women who bear children and take care of a house and the family for the most part), 4: frontiersmanship... ?? and finally, 5: heterosexuality. Okay, so if you are to be considered a mascline female basically you need to be a staright, rich and successful man who has physical force and is the dominant figure in his family. Again, can I call BS?
I know plenty of gay people who are more masculine than males and plenty of females who are more successful than their male partners, so what does that mean? Does that not discredit this argument at all? I just feel like I read a 20 page article where some a**hole decided to try and make females feel not good enough and less powerful than males. Well, reality check, it's the 21st century and if you feel like that, you need to get with it.
The only thing that I really did agree with in this article was rge refernce to masculinity in sport referring to it as, "sactioned agression." That makes sense and I thought it was a very clever way to put it. I also agree with the statement that there are more opportunities for male participation on sports and women are marginalized as cheerleaders, spectators, and advertising images. The statement stinks, but it's true. Nolan Ryan does seem to be a perfectly masculine male when looking at what Trujillo classifies as masculine. I do disagree with a lot that he says, but that is a point that I cannot argue.

Week 11 post

This week's reading was incredibly insightful in terms of the hegemonic way in which we view sports in society. This standard, in my opinion, has continued even to this day. Nolan Ryan was clearly a prime example of what we as journalists convey as the ultimate "man." Ryan embodied all five traits outlined in the reading. His dominance as a pitcher, joined by his reputation for being unemotional, his money making power and his work like approach all made him the ideal image of masculinity.

It is no surprise to see sports and athletes covered and presented with such hegemonic undertones. Professional sports in this country are dominated by males while sports journalism is the same. If the subjects are male dominated and the reporters are male dominated, of course stereotypical male traits and mindsets will be present in the work. We often see machine like athletes such as Nolan Ryan idolized in the same way for similar traits. Dominant athletes like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Brett Favre and so on have all be praised and presented in similar ways to Ryan. Young boys want to become these strong examples of masculinity that they see on television and it is a common habit of journalists to present to the people what the people want because that is what they will engage with the most.

The most interesting thing that I took away from the article was the idea that the hegemonic nature of sports tends to be a negative in that it teaches males to forever compete with one another and constantly put each other down. I vehemently disagree with that assessment. As a man, I have played sports my entire life and I learned way more about working with others than I did about competing. I think the positive lessons are sometimes overlooked. The article also made a comment regarding men using sports as a way to keep dominance over physical force, stating that it should be studied in the same regard as rape, pornography and domestic violence. I'm glad this statement was presented at the very end of the reading because I almost wanted to put it down right there. Women participation in sports exists. To make a comment saying that men use sports to physically dominant is ludicrous on the grounds that women play sports too. The difference is consumerism. Male sports are put on the forefront in society because people are willing to pay more to see it. It is an insult to compare sports to acts which each have criminal and morally questionable associations.